Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: The Banner Saga: Factions (Most Obvious Problems/mistakes)

  1. #1

    The Banner Saga: Factions (Most Obvious Problems/mistakes)

    In no particular order.

    1. Not allowing players to click a unit and view all of its stats during the game. Duh? When is this coming? It's long overdue.

    2. Not listing the exact details of a unit's abilities in games, numbers and all. Currently, if you want to learn the exact details of a unit's ability, you either have to upgrade to that unit first, find something in the forums, or go to a wiki.

    3. No hexagons. You set out to make a game with strategic combat, and decided to go with the standard grid. Hexagons would have opened up more.

    4. Pointless grind. This isn't an RPG: this is a strategy game spinoff of an RPG. Don't waste people's time with grinding, especially to those who have already paid money. A lot of people are going to go berserk when they read this, that's because they are brainwashed, Skinner Box rats. No, artificial time barriers are not a good thing to have on a strategy game.

    5. The fire pit map. Please... kill it.

  2. #2
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    I shall reply in no particular order. lol

    1. I really like the fire pit map! IMO probably the best in terms of strategic environmental decisions...

    2. Nothing wrong with squares instead of hexagons - pretty pointless gripe if you ask me

    3. I can understand people disliking a 'grind', but it has been proven time and time again that multiplayer games benefit from such systems. It adds longevity and gives a feeling of progression.

    4. Yes, clicking for more unit info could be useful.

    5. Yes, perhaps more detailed information on abilities could also be useful.
    Last edited by loveboof; 03-16-2013 at 01:43 PM.

  3. #3
    Member Alejandro Mackgyver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    38
    Pointless grind. This isn't an RPG: this is a strategy game spinoff of an RPG. Don't waste people's time with grinding, especially to those who have already paid money. A lot of people are going to go berserk when they read this, that's because they are brainwashed, Skinner Box rats. No, artificial time barriers are not a good thing to have on a strategy game.
    I like how you circumvented any criticism directed towards your post by claiming they're "brain washed." But if you'd like to learn more about how skinner box principle is actually applied in games then I'd direct you towards this article on Gamasutra that accurately describes Skinner box principles and their application in games. More specifically how they compel a player to continue playing a game, not on forming his/hers' opinions on said game.

    And I'll second Loveboof's defense of this system adding a feeling of progression to a game.

    There have been plenty of post already bringing up all of your qualms that I recommend you check out for the answer to your demands.

  4. #4
    Junior Member Chopsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    23
    1. Yeah, this desperately needs to be put into the game. As well as a quick and easy way to tell if an enemies unit is rank 2/3.

    2. Also a valid point, I agree w/ you here.

    3. Hexagons are fun and all, but I thinks squares work better for this game.

    4. I agree here. The renown required for you to get a rank 1 team is a bit long, but it's reasonable. 40 renown for rank 0 to rank 1 isn't too bad. However, to get from rank 1 to rank 2 it suddenly costs 150 renown. That is just too ridiculous of a jump.

    5. The firepit map can be annoying, but at least it adds some variation to the game.

  5. #5
    Community Moderator Guğmundr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Skogr, Setterlund
    Posts
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by BattleSloth View Post
    1. Not allowing players to click a unit and view all of its stats during the game. Duh? When is this coming? It's long overdue.
    It's on Stoic's to-do list. Should be coming fairly soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by BattleSloth View Post
    2. Not listing the exact details of a unit's abilities in games, numbers and all. Currently, if you want to learn the exact details of a unit's ability, you either have to upgrade to that unit first, find something in the forums, or go to a wiki.
    Good point. Perhaps an in-game encyclopedia, similar to the "Civilopedia" in the Civilization series, would fit nicely in Factions.

    Quote Originally Posted by BattleSloth View Post
    5. The fire pit map. Please... kill it.
    To be honest, the Great Hall is my least favorite map, but I don't think it's broken. It makes for an interesting change in tactics, IMO.
    Án brynju, mağur er varnarlaus. Án styrks, er hann ekkert.

  6. #6
    In no order:

    1- Fire pit map is great and adds some strategic depth to battle. Better than just lining up with no terrain.

    2- As for hexs vs squares. In this game really doesn't matter. That is a very small gripe imo.

    3/4- I agree about more info being displayed. Especially ranks. You can click on a unit and see its stats though, but only when it is its turn to go. Not good enough. That is currently the only way to see if the unit is rank 2.

    5- All games generally have some kind of grind to them. This adds to the replayability and longevity. The game has rpg elements in the unit customizations and level ups. If everyone could get everything in game quickly (which technically they can with money if they so desire) they would get burned out and leave. Especially when this is more or less a tool for the team to test thing for the single player portion of the game. More of a bonus for us players, rather than being developed from the get go as their main focus.

    Seems to me like you want everything handed to you and no real difficulty playing the game. You dislike the only strategic map there is, complain about leveling up your guys etc.. Your conclusion and broad generalization about all of us being "brainwashed" does nothing to give you any credit for your argument. These are just your opinions and nothing more. You barely gave any reasons for your conclusions as well so how is the team suppose to take this info in a constructive manner?

  7. #7
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Mackgyver View Post
    But if you'd like to learn more about how skinner box principle is actually applied in games then I'd direct you towards this article on Gamasutra that accurately describes Skinner box principles and their application in games.
    A little off-topic I suppose, but thanks for this article; it's really interesting!
    Last edited by sweetjer; 03-16-2013 at 03:10 PM. Reason: brackets
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  8. #8
    I sort of agree with the level grind, however there are two sides to this issue. First, the sense of accomplishment/replayability issue as mentioned in other posts. I dont have any problem with this if it's managed in a balanced and fair manner.

    Which leads me to my next point. There is also research regarding games, moblie apps., etc. that shows that any immediate impediments (perceived or real) to using the full application drastically reduce user satisfaction and greatly increase the chance that users will decide not to continue the game, mobile app., etc.

    So I sort of agree with the op, in that I think the amount of renown necessary for ranks 2 and 3 are ridiculously high. imho, a 40/80/120 renown system would work better, as it is a simple x2 and x3 of the original renown cost. but keep in mind this is a ftp game. unfortunately that means most likely there is something in the game to encourage people to spend real money. at least in this case, spending money is a time saver and not necessarily a ptw scenario.

    squares vs hexagons i think is a valid point, but both systems work well in their own way. my only wish is that there was a melee unit with an ability to make diagonal attacks. diagonal attacks only for archers seems a bit unrealistic and limits tactical melee options overall. I think its a bit late to make such a drastic change from squares to hexagons.

    at first i hated the fire pit map, but now I kind of like it. at least it adds variation to the mostly bland maps. its always interesting for me to see how opponents decide to start and move their units. I've had many fun and close matches on the fire pit map. I vote to keep the fire pit map, and design some new maps with features that require more careful choices for unit movement.

  9. #9
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by masterblaster View Post
    Which leads me to my next point. There is also research regarding games, moblie apps., etc. that shows that any immediate impediments (perceived or real) to using the full application drastically reduce user satisfaction and greatly increase the chance that users will decide not to continue the game, mobile app., etc.

    So I sort of agree with the op, in that I think the amount of renown necessary for ranks 2 and 3 are ridiculously high. imho, a 40/80/120 renown system would work better, as it is a simple x2 and x3 of the original renown cost. but keep in mind this is a ftp game. unfortunately that means most likely there is something in the game to encourage people to spend real money. at least in this case, spending money is a time saver and not necessarily a ptw scenario.
    Yea... Stoic has a hard choice to make, given how diverse the playerbase is - you've got people that play rarely and mostly with friends, people like me who can squeeze in a game or two every other day and competitive players spending daily a few hours minimum. Wherever they shift the prices / grind level there will be a fraction of players that felt they were left out. In my opinion the current prices aren't that bad, given the audience they cater for.

  10. #10
    Junior Member Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    9
    Answering OP:
    1) Agreed, this information should be there, otherwise it's also somewhat of a memory game, and strategy games should avoid that. (This is not a poker, to remember and count!)
    2) Completely agree, I had to make a new unit to check that the ability was nothing like I had imagined it (distance, aoe, dmg cap, etc..)
    3) Hexagons would be more interesting, yet squares do not seem to have many problems still.
    4) Erm... I did not understand the point sorry. Too much grind is the argument? I think this is fine. You need the combat experience as a player as well, in order to get better.
    5) Fire pit is awesome! Have played my best and worst games there! I would actually promote the idea of more environmental hazardous maps!

    Cheers all,
    Two

  11. #11
    *Sighs* I typed up a big response and it logged me out. I don't love you anymore, Select All.

    6. The forum sux (not really)

    Here's an condensed version, which probably lacks some good points that I now can't remember:

    @ Alejandro: I've written an paper on that article! The Skinner Box mechanisms are unnecessary to keep people playing. It uses up the time of people who just want to play a competitive strategy game. What if they had allowed us to upgrade units however from the start, but had also given a wider variety of alternate colors? Renown would be spent on names, banners, and color schemes. People get progression AND a good strategy game, without a time wall.

    People seem to agree with me on stats/abilities.

    Hexagons are totally superior, as they open up more movement options.

    The fire pit map seems to favor some builds over others by a significant amount. Perhaps I'm based, as I've been using a melee heavy build (or all melee, hah, but I disliked the map before that, and even with archers). It just seems awkward if you spread your units out on both sides. So it makes me feel forced into a deadly 50-50 guessing game (with two arbitrary choices) against some builds. Maybe I need to play on it more.
    Last edited by BattleSloth; 03-16-2013 at 06:26 PM.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Shiri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    94
    Opening up more movement options ISN'T superior though. It would be inferior for this game, because the best part of it is how crucial position for everything is for things like movement blocking, shieldwall/heavy impact, varl size, and so on. Same reason you don't have diagonal movement. Expanded movement choice isn't a terminal value in and of itself, it's only worthwhile when the game would be better for having them.

    I do really want that stat banner though.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by BattleSloth View Post
    Hexagons are totally superior, as they open up more movement options.
    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude


    lol, well it is true that hexagons open up more movement options, but that doesnt make it totally superior. more options doesnt automatically equal better game.

    personally, I would feel like renown is just a gimmick if it could only be used for names, colors, banners, and other decorative features. honestly I could care less about that kind of stuff. i think the answer is to just lower the cost of ranks 2 & 3 to a more manageable number. I also feel that beginning with a team of base units helps people learn the basics of the game before jumping into the complexities of the advanced units.

  14. #14
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    The 'grind' that has been raised as an issue is simply playing the game! It's not like we're killing boars in the forest (South Park)...

  15. #15
    Senior Member Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    265
    i will just go ahead and rate this thread with 1 star, as far from being constructive critisism it's just pure trash-talking about the game!
    Last edited by Yellow; 03-17-2013 at 08:51 AM.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    i will just go ahead and rate this thread with 1 star, as far from being constructive critisism it's just pure trash-talking about the game!
    Even if you didn't like my opening tone, (which isn't totally serious, I'm a sarcastic person and I like the game) are you really going to say this hasn't been a constructive thread? People are talking about it, exchanging ideas, agreeing and disagreeing with me, and nobody is going berserk or anything.

    I really care about those virtual yellow stars, though!

  17. #17
    Member Tatski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    58
    Other suggestions are fine exept for the firepit and the hexgrid
    Hexgrid will make it a different game IMO and hexgrid doesn't mean that it's more complex than a standard grid... I like the square grid (for this game at least)because it's easier to funnel/choke/block enemy movement paths...
    Firepit map is also fine, still my least favorite map in the game.. Sacrificing 1 or 2 str for better positioning is well worth it. Crossing the firepit will not cause you the game! I don't consider myself as a good player but I think I haven't lost in a firepit game where units are deployed on opposite sides of the pit, simply because my enemy is scared to cross the pit. Come to think of it, aside from Hall of Valor, it would be interesting if they implemented a page were you can see your personal stats like which map you is your strongest(best win/loss ratio), and which is your weakest, most used unit and least used unit and etc ..
    Last edited by Tatski; 03-17-2013 at 05:56 PM.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by BattleSloth View Post
    Even if you didn't like my opening tone, (which isn't totally serious, I'm a sarcastic person and I like the game) are you really going to say this hasn't been a constructive thread? People are talking about it, exchanging ideas, agreeing and disagreeing with me, and nobody is going berserk or anything.

    I really care about those virtual yellow stars, though!
    Yellow Stars are the only reason to existance... lol...

    On a more serious note, as u yourself adressed, ur opening tone was quite rude, even if u was being "sarcastical" it gives the entire comment a bad initial first impresion... and while some comments have been a bitt less critical, the entire thread still feels a bit like a hating thread, more than anything else, not to mention that most of the things here posted, have been adressed already by the devs and/or suggested/mentioned several times, so repeating them in such tone gives even further impresion of this being as i already mentioned indeed a hating thread... that's atleast how i feel about it...

  19. #19
    Backer Grits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    106
    If you have a problem with the grind, just pay $20. Everyone wants everything for free these days. For those that want to go straight to competition, you can go ahead and pay for the game. Other people don't mind leveling up more slowly and learning the game as they go.

  20. #20
    Junior Member Chopsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    23
    Even paying $20 will only get you a single rank 2 team. That's kind of unreasonable.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •